Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy versus Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy
Macrovascular invasion
Sorafenib
Journal
Liver cancer
ISSN: 2235-1795
Titre abrégé: Liver Cancer
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101597993
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
03
02
2020
accepted:
15
05
2020
entrez:
21
10
2020
pubmed:
22
10
2020
medline:
22
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prior to the approval of sorafenib, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) was offered to patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in East Asia, particularly Japan. According to the Japanese guidelines, HAIC is recommended as one of the treatment options in patients without extrahepatic metastasis (EHM). The present cohort study compared the use of HAIC and sorafenib on outcomes of patients with advanced HCC. Consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received HAIC or sorafenib as a first-line systemic therapy were enrolled from 10 Japanese institutions. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) in patients with macrovascular invasion (MVI), but without EHM, and OS in patients without both MVI and EHM. Between 2009 and 2016, 2,006 patients were enrolled (541 HAIC patients, 1,465 sorafenib patients). After propensity score matching, the OS of patients with MVI but without EHM was significantly longer in the HAIC group compared with the sorafenib group (10.1 vs. 9.1 months for the HAIC and sorafenib groups, respectively; HAIC is a potential front-line treatment choice in a subpopulation of patients with advanced HCC with MVI but without EHM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prior to the approval of sorafenib, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) was offered to patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in East Asia, particularly Japan. According to the Japanese guidelines, HAIC is recommended as one of the treatment options in patients without extrahepatic metastasis (EHM).
METHODS
METHODS
The present cohort study compared the use of HAIC and sorafenib on outcomes of patients with advanced HCC. Consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received HAIC or sorafenib as a first-line systemic therapy were enrolled from 10 Japanese institutions. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) in patients with macrovascular invasion (MVI), but without EHM, and OS in patients without both MVI and EHM.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Between 2009 and 2016, 2,006 patients were enrolled (541 HAIC patients, 1,465 sorafenib patients). After propensity score matching, the OS of patients with MVI but without EHM was significantly longer in the HAIC group compared with the sorafenib group (10.1 vs. 9.1 months for the HAIC and sorafenib groups, respectively;
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
HAIC is a potential front-line treatment choice in a subpopulation of patients with advanced HCC with MVI but without EHM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33083282
doi: 10.1159/000508724
pii: lic-0009-0583
pmc: PMC7548914
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
583-595Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
K.U. received honoraria from Bayer and Eisai, and consulting or advisory fees from Eisai and Eli Lilly. S. Ogasawara received honoraria from Bayer, Eisai, Eli Lilly, consulting or advisory fees from Bayer, Eisai, Merck & Co. Inc., Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, and research grants from Bayer and Eisai. M.I. received consulting or advisory fees from Bayer Yakuhin, Eisai, Novartis Pharma, Shire, and MSD, and research grants from Bayer Yakuhin, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Yakult, Eli Lilly Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Baxalta Japan Limited, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Nano Carrier, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Novartis Pharma, and Takara Bio. Y.Y. received honoraria from Bayer and an Overseas Research Fellowship from the Uehara Memorial Foundation. T.T. received a consulting or advisory role, speakers bureau, and research funding from Bayer and Eisai. T.Y. received consulting or advisory roles, speakers' bureau, and research funding from Bayer and Eisai. S. Obi received research funding from Eisai, Otsuka pharmaceutical, and Mochida pharmaceutical. T. Ohmura received honoraria from Eisai and Bayer and speakers bureau from Bayer. T. Ohki received speakers bureau from Bayer, Eisai, STARmed, Abbvie, Shionogi, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma. K.N. received a lecture fee from Pfizer. Y.O. received honoraria from Bayer, Eisai, and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma. M. Kurosaki received speakers bureau from Eisai and Bayer. K.C. received a consulting or advisory fee from Abbvie, Asuka, Glaxo Smithkline, and speakers bureau from Astellas, Abbvie, Abbot, Eisai, Merck & Co. Inc., Otuka, Olympus Medical Systems, Gilead Sciences, JIMRO, ZERIA Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Takeda, Tanabe Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Bayer, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Miyarisan Pharmaceutical, and Yakult Pharmaceutical Industry. S.K. received a consulting or advisory role, speakers bureau, and research funding from Bayer and Eisai. N.I. received speakers bureau from Eisai and Bayer. N.K. received honoraria, a consulting or advisory role, and research funding from Bayer and Eisai. M. Kudo received honoraria from Bayer, Eisai, Merck & Co. Inc., and Ajinomoto, consulting or advisory frees from Kowa, Merck & Co. Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical, and research grants from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Otuka, Takeda, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck & Co., Eisai, Bayer, and Abbvie. M.O. received honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Otsuka, Astellas, Gilead Science, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Kyorin, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Sumitomo Dainippon, Vertex Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Merck Serono, and Zeria. The other authors involved in this study have nothing to declare regarding funding or conflicts of interest.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 24;359(4):378-90
pubmed: 18650514
Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jan;10(1):25-34
pubmed: 19095497
Liver Cancer. 2014 Oct;3(3-4):458-68
pubmed: 26280007
Oncology. 2011;81(5-6):281-90
pubmed: 22133996
Liver Cancer. 2016 Nov;6(1):16-26
pubmed: 27995084
Hepatol Res. 2008 May;38(5):474-83
pubmed: 18430093
Liver Cancer. 2017 Nov;6(4):275-286
pubmed: 29234631
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;5(7):953-960
pubmed: 31070690
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun;3(6):424-432
pubmed: 29631810
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108
pubmed: 25651787
Cancer. 2002 Aug 1;95(3):588-95
pubmed: 12209752
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016 Apr 14;2:16018
pubmed: 27158749
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2018 Sep;82(3):469-478
pubmed: 29982870
Cancer Med. 2019 Jan;8(1):137-146
pubmed: 30575325
Hepatol Res. 2016 Mar;46(5):372-90
pubmed: 26970231
Mol Clin Oncol. 2017 Dec;7(6):1013-1020
pubmed: 29285366
Invest New Drugs. 2015 Jun;33(3):729-39
pubmed: 25861764
Liver Cancer. 2017 Nov;6(4):360-374
pubmed: 29234639
Cancer. 2000 May 1;88(9):1986-91
pubmed: 10813709
Lancet. 2018 Mar 24;391(10126):1163-1173
pubmed: 29433850
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013 Aug;72(2):463-70
pubmed: 23812005
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 1;48(2):103-114
pubmed: 29253194
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1986;111(1):42-6
pubmed: 2936747
Liver Cancer. 2020 Aug;9(4):382-396
pubmed: 32999866
J Hepatol. 2018 Jul;69(1):60-69
pubmed: 29471013
J Dig Dis. 2015 Sep;16(9):505-12
pubmed: 26121102
Ann Oncol. 2016 Nov;27(11):2090-2096
pubmed: 27573564
Br J Cancer. 2013 Oct 1;109(7):1904-7
pubmed: 24008659